Advertisement

Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 547–560 | Cite as

Turning up by Turning Over: The Change of Scenery Effect in Major League Baseball

  • Bryan L. Rogers
  • James M. VardamanEmail author
  • David G. Allen
  • Ivan S. Muslin
  • Meagan Brock Baskin
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

This study examined a “change of scenery” effect on performance in major league baseball (MLB). We also tested this effect for voluntary versus involuntary employee departures, as well as employees returning to a past employer.

Design/Methodology/Approach

This study uses publicly available MLB performance data from 2004 to 2015. The data comprise 712 team changes for players following two consecutive years with the same organization. Data were analyzed using MANCOVA to assess the impact of changing teams on player performance.

Findings

Results indicate players with declining performance benefited significantly from a change of scenery. Following a team change, these players experienced a significant increase in their performance that remained stable through a subsequent season. The effect was not different for players who changed teams via trade and free agency and was modest for those returning to a past organization. Analysis also showed that players leaving while their performance was improving suffered a subsequent performance drop-off in the new organization.

Implications

As the war for talent escalates and employees change jobs more frequently, extending our understanding of how performance can be influenced by work context may provide new insight into organization staffing policies.

Originality/Value

Results extend field theory by highlighting how past performance interacts with new work contexts to influence performance. This is one of the few studies evaluating the job change-performance relationship, and perhaps the first to account for the effects of performance trends prior to exit.

Keywords

Change of scenery Performance Turnover Job change 

References

  1. Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2000). Habits as knowledge structures: Automaticity in goal-directed behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 53–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2012). Using performance management to win the talent war. Business Horizons, 55, 609–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aguinis, H., & O’Boyle, E. (2014). Star performers in twenty-first century organizations. Personnel Psychology, 67, 313–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen, D. G. (2006). Do organizational socialization tactics influence newcomer embeddedness and turnover? Journal of Management, 32, 237–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baruch, Y. (2004). Transforming careers: From linear to multidirectional career paths: Organizational and individual perspectives. Career Development International, 9, 58–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bateman, T. S., Karwan, K. R., & Kazee, T. A. (1983). Getting a fresh start: A natural quasi-experimental test of the performance effects of moving to a new job. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 517–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker, K. H., & Haunschild, A. (2003). The impact of boundaryless careers on organizational decision making: An analysis from the perspective of Luhmann’s theory of social systems. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 713–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boswell, W. R., Boudreau, J. W., & Tichy, J. (2005). The relationship between employee job change and job satisfaction: The honeymoon-hangover effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 882–892.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Boswell, W. R., Shipp, A. J., Payne, S. C., & Culbertson, S. S. (2009). Changes in newcomer job satisfaction over time: Examining the pattern of honeymoons and hangovers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 844–858.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dai, H., Milkman, K. L., & Riis, J. (2014). The fresh start effect: Temporal landmarks motivate aspirational behavior. Management Science, 60, 2563–2582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dalton, D. R., & Todor, W. D. (1979). Turnover turned over: An expanded and positive perspective. Academy of Management Review, 4, 225–235.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1097–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Finkelstein, L. M., Kulas, J. T., & Dages, K. D. (2003). Age differences in proactive newcomer socialization strategies in two populations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 473–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gardner, T. M. (2002). In the trenches at the talent wars: Competitive interaction for scarce human resources. Human Resource Management, 41, 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerber, M., Wittekind, A., Grote, G., & Staffelbach, B. (2009). Exploring types of career orientation: A latent class analysis approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 303–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gottschalk, P., & Maloney, T. (1985). Involuntary terminations, unemployment, and job matching: A test of job search theory. Journal of Labor Economics, 3, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hershatter, A., & Epstein, M. (2010). Millennials and the world of work: An organization and management perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Eberly, M. B. (2008). Turnover and retention research: A glance at the past, a closer review of the present, and a venture into the future. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 231–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holton, E. F. (2001). New employee development tactics: Perceived availability, helpfulness, and relationship with job attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1991). Structural equations modeling test of a turnover theory: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 350–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hom, P. W., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (2012). Reviewing employee turnover: Focusing on proximal withdrawal states and an expanded criterion. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 831–858.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jansen, A., Melchers, K. G., Lievens, F., Kleinmann, M., Brändli, M., Fraefel, L., et al. (2013). Situation assessment as an ignored factor in the behavioral consistency paradigm underlying the validity of personnel selection procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 326–341.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Judge, T. A., Simon, L. S., Hurst, C., & Kelley, K. (2014). What I experienced yesterday is who I am today: Relationship of work motivations and behaviors to within-individual variation in the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 199–221.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., Higgins, E. T., & Capozza, D. (2007). “On the move” or “staying put”: Locomotion, need for closure, and reactions to organizational change. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1305–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lewin, K. (1939). Field theory and experiment in social psychology: Concepts and methods. American Journal of Sociology, 44, 868–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewin, K. (1941). Regression, retrogression and development. University of Iowa Studies of Child Welfare, 18, 1–43.Google Scholar
  28. Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the field at a given time. Psychological Review, 50, 292–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewin, K. (1951). Constructs in field theory [1944]. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers by Kurt Lewin (pp. 30–42). London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  30. Loan-Clarke, J., Arnold, J., Coombs, C., Hartley, R., & Bosley, S. (2010). Retention, turnover and return—a longitudinal study of allied health professionals in Britain. Human Resource Management Journal, 20, 391–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (1995). Loyal from day one: Biodata, organizational identification, and turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology, 48, 309–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mannix, C. (2012). Market watch. Sports Illustrated, 116, 36.Google Scholar
  33. Martin, J. L. (2003). What is field theory? American Journal of Sociology, 109, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mayes, B. T. (1978). Some boundary conditions in the application of motivation models. Academy of Management Review, 3, 51–58.Google Scholar
  35. Ng, E. S. W., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. T. (2010). New generation, great expectations: A field study of the millennial generation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 281–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nissen, M. (2015). Here’s where apple is poaching its electric car team from. http://qz.com/347000/heres-where-apple-is-poaching-its-electric-car-team-from/.
  37. Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., & Pluntke, F. (2006). Routinization, work characteristics and their relationships with creative and proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 257–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 54–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peetz, J., & Wilson, A. E. (2014). Marking time: Selective use of temporal landmarks as barriers between current and future selves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 44–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Pierro, A., Giacomantonio, M., Pica, G., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2013). Locomotion and the preference for multi-tasking: Implications for well-being. Motivation and Emotion, 37, 213–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Quinones, M. A., Ford, J. K., & Teachout, M. A. (1995). The relationship between work experience and job performance: A conceptual and meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 48, 887–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Saks, A. M. (1994). Moderating effects of self-efficacy for the relationship between training method and anxiety and stress reactions of newcomers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 639–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Seetharaman, D.& Chan, E. (2015). Apple poaching auto engineers to build battery division: Lawsuit. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-autos-lawsuit-idUSKBN0LN04Y20150219.
  44. Shandler, R. (2010, August 8). Fanalytics: A change of scenery can inflate, deflate stats. USA Today, (p. 6).Google Scholar
  45. Sheehan, J. (2012). Barter kings. Sports Illustrated, 117, 22.Google Scholar
  46. Shipp, A. J., Furst-Holloway, S., Harris, T. B., & Rosen, B. (2014). Gone today but here tomorrow: Extending the unfolding model of turnover to consider boomerang employees. Personnel Psychology, 67, 421–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Somaya, D., & Williamson, I. O. (2008). Rethinking the “war for talent”. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49, 29–34.Google Scholar
  48. Swider, B. W., Boswell, W. R., & Zimmerman, R. D. (2011). Examining the job search-turnover relationship: The role of embeddedness, job satisfaction, and available alternatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 432–441.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Tobin, R. G. (2008). On the potential of a chemical Bonds: Possible effects of steroids on home run production in baseball. American Journal of Physics, 76, 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tschopp, C., Grote, G., & Gerber, M. (2014). How career orientation shapes the job satisfaction-turnover intention link. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Turner, S. F., & Fern, M. J. (2012). Examining the stability and variability of routine performance: The effects of experience and context change. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 1407–1434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vandenberghe, C., Panaccio, A., Bentein, K., Mignonac, K., & Roussel, P. (2011). Assessing longitudinal change of and dynamic relationships among role stressors, job attitudes, turnover intention, and well-being in neophyte newcomers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 652–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weinstein, M. (2013). Is the change of scenery effect a real thing? www.fangraphs.com/blogs/is-the-change-of-scenery-effect-a-real-thing.
  54. Woo, S. E., & Allen, D. G. (2014). Toward an inductive theory of stayers and seekers in the organization. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 683–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bryan L. Rogers
    • 1
  • James M. Vardaman
    • 1
    Email author
  • David G. Allen
    • 2
  • Ivan S. Muslin
    • 3
  • Meagan Brock Baskin
    • 4
  1. 1.College of BusinessMississippi State UniversityStarkvilleUSA
  2. 2.School of Management and Labor RelationsRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  3. 3.College of BusinessMarshall UniversityHuntingtonUSA
  4. 4.College of BusinessUniversity of Central OklahomaEdmondUSA

Personalised recommendations